vi. The COPP has spent a fair amount of time working on BIPA implementation. Mangan Dep. Tr. 40:2-12. vii. Once it has been determined that a violation of the law has occurred, a county attomey may prosecute; if they fail to prosecute, then Defendant Mangan may prosecute. Mont. Code Ann. $ 13-37-124. viii. During local elections in2019, there was at least one instance ofan individual being referred to county prosecutors for violation of BIPA. Mangan Dep. Tr. l3 5:13- I 39:5. ix. The COPP did not coordinate with the county attomeys on any of the three allegations of BIPA violations that were reported directly to the COPP office. .See x. Mangan Dep. Tr. 135:13-145:8. For the tkee instances of voters refusing to sign BIPA forms, the COPP sent letters to the voters informing them of BIPA requirements but never followed up with the county election administrator to see if the forms were actually filled out and retumed. ManganDep. Tr. 140:12-145:8. xi. For the one incident of an alleged BIPA violation that was reported directly to the county attomey, the COPP never checked in with the county attomey. Mangan Dep. Tr. 135: i 3- 139:5 xii. Should a collector fail to include any required information on the Registry form, the collector is in violation of BIPA, and although the COPP received incomplete forms, they are not investigated because Defendant Mangan believes it could be very cumbersome to enforce the missing data on and it 34